DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 20, 2026 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 19, canceled claims 2-3, 6-7, and 14-18, and added claims 20-28. Claims 1, 4-5, 8-13, and 19-28 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 6, 2025. The examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections and the Drawings and Claims objections in light of the amendments to the Drawings and Claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 to page 10, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “wherein the first extending portions of the first parasitic slot and the second parasitic slot are located between the second extending portions of the first parasitic slot and the second parasitic slot” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “wherein the first extending portion of the first parasitic slot and the first extending portion of the second parasitic slot are located between the second extending portion of the first parasitic slot and the second extending portion of the second parasitic slot”
In claim 8, “wherein the L-shaped first parasitic slot” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “wherein the first parasitic slot”
In claim 11, “a plurality of the multi-slot antennas according to claim 1” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “a plurality of multi-slot antennas according to the multi-slot antenna of claim 1”
In claim 28, “the nine multi-slot antennas” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the multi-slot antennas”
In claim 28, “each pair of the multi-slot antennas” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “each pair of the four pairs of multi-slot antennas”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5, 9, 13, 19, 22-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the first extending portion has a length" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “wherein the first extending portion of each of the first parasitic slot, the second parasitic slot, the third parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot has a length”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein the second extending portion has a length" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “wherein the second extending portion of each of the first parasitic slot, the second parasitic slot, the third parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot has a length”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "and wherein the second extending portion has a width" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “wherein the second extending portion of each of the first parasitic slot, the second parasitic slot, the third parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot has a width”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein the first extending portion" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “wherein the first extending portion of each of the first parasitic slot, the second parasitic slot, the third parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second extending portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “the second extending portion of each of the first parasitic slot, the second parasitic slot, the third parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein the multi-slot antenna is symmetric" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “wherein the multi-slot antenna array is symmetric”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "wherein the first extending portion" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “wherein the first extending portion of each of the first parasitic slot, the second parasitic slot, the third parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second extending portion" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “the second extending portion of each of the first parasitic slot, the second parasitic slot, the third parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "wherein a vertical distance between the first extending portions of the first parasitic slot and the third parasitic slot" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “wherein a vertical distance between the first extending portion of the first parasitic slot and the first extending portion of the third parasitic slot”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation " the second extending portions of the first parasitic slot and the third parasitic slot" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “the second extending portion of the first parasitic slot and the second extending portion of the third parasitic slot”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "wherein a vertical distance between the first extending portions of the second parasitic slot and the fourth parasitic slot" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “wherein a vertical distance between the first extending portion of the second parasitic slot and the first extending portion of the fourth parasitic slot”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the second extending portions of the second parasitic slot and the fourth parasitic slot " in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the previous limitation as “the second extending portion of the second parasitic slot and the second extending portion of the fourth parasitic slot”.
Claim 28 inherits the deficiencies of claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 20-21, and 24-27 are allowed.
Claims 4-5, 9, 13, 19, 22-23, and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. Added primarily for emphasis, the claim recitations “a ground plane; a driven slot positioned on the ground plane and extending along a first direction; a first parasitic slot positioned on the ground plane and at a first side of the driven slot, wherein the first parasitic slot at extends along the first direction and a second direction different than the first direction; a second parasitic slot positioned on the ground plane and at the first side of the driven slot, wherein the second parasitic slot extends along the first direction and the second direction; a third parasitic slot positioned on the ground plane and at a second side of the driven slot opposite the first side, wherein a first end of the driven slot is located between the first parasitic slot and the third parasitic slot, and the third parasitic slot at least extends along the first direction and the second direction, and wherein the first parasitic slot and the third parasitic slot are symmetrical about the driven slot; and a fourth parasitic slot positioned on the ground plane and at the second side of the driven slot, wherein a second end of the driven slot is opposite the first end and located between the second parasitic slot and the fourth parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot at least extends along the first direction and the second direction, and wherein the second parasitic slot and the fourth parasitic slot are symmetrical about the driven slot; wherein each of the first parasitic slot, the second parasitic slot, the third parasitic slot, and the fourth parasitic slot presents an L-shape by extending along the first direction and the second directions and comprises: a first extending portion extending along the first direction; and a second extending portion connected to the first extending portion and extending along the second direction, wherein the first extending portion is shorter than the second extending portion; wherein the first extending portions of the first parasitic slot and the second parasitic slot are located between the second extending portions of the first parasitic slot and the second parasitic slot” in claim 1 are not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2845